Stick w/ your current set-up and save up for something that'll be a real improvement. SAVE! You are just looking to spend money to spend money. The grass you are looking at isn't greener. If you want greener grass, you are going to have to have more GREEN (cash).

I'm not L4L but 6pt has more support throughout the frame. 2pt is more prone to deforming the racquet in my thoughts. Theres a whole thread about this somewhere..
Here it is!http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=364252
If its cheaper to get a 2pt, then just go with that. If you don't mind spending some extra cash, definitely go for a 6pt. Well worth the upgrade.

Lakers4Life, I noticed you recommended the 6pt but have the 2pt. Are you saying if you had to do it again you would go with the 6pt and why? I am torn between the two
thanks

Click to expand...

I own a 2-point, because that's what was available (used) at the time. Though I don't mind having a 2-point it has it's advantages and dis-advantages. That's probably the reason why I still own it, but would gladly trade up in a heartbeat.

Some complain that a 6 point, the side supports blocks grommet holes. Those people are just mounting the rackets wrong, IMHO. Albeit, the Gamma does have wide side supports. My Sensor has a 6 point mounting system, but the towers are fixed, and are limited to mainly tennis rackets. Another reason why I keep the Gamma.

More or less it's personal preference, both systems work fine, and both systems have some slight dis-advantages.

I've had the 5003 and found the towers and the arms often times getting in the way.. I only string for myself and occasionally family and I rarely string anything above 62 lbs. My thought is that if the racket deforms or cracks, then it was poorly made and about to go anyway. Im leaning toward the 2pt but you may have saved me the other way.

Off topic, the Pro's Pro P100 guy from **** texted me and said they were out of stock, why place an ad on **** for an item you don't have? hmmmmm

Lakers4Life, I noticed you recommended the 6pt but have the 2pt. Are you saying if you had to do it again you would go with the 6pt and why? I am torn between the two
thanks

Click to expand...

I prefer 2-point in general, but I should note that all 2-point systems are NOT equal (see below). If I was choosing between mounts on Gamma systems only, I would go in this order of personal preference.

I'm not L4L but 6pt has more support throughout the frame. 2pt is more prone to deforming the racquet in my thoughts. Theres a whole thread about this somewhere..
Here it is!http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=364252
If its cheaper to get a 2pt, then just go with that. If you don't mind spending some extra cash, definitely go for a 6pt. Well worth the upgrade.

Click to expand...

That's a bit of a stretch comparing simple 2-pt (klipper/low-end dropweights) with a well-designed/robust 2-point. Strictly speaking, most "2 point" mounts are more like 4+ point mounts, the major difference is that they are "inside" mounts. I should also point out that inside mounts are designed to resist/prevent deformation, whereas 6 point outside mounts are designed to counteract active deformation. Note that outside supports in a 6 point mount are not designed/supposed to be tightened (too) firmly against the frame. If you follow the commonly accepted "finger tight" methodology, the outside supports actually do absolutely nothing UNTIL the frame deforms. I'd personally go with a well designed inside mount over an outside mount, but when we're talking about the higher/highish end machines, there's really no major reason to choose one or the other unless there's a specific preference for either. (Speed, blockage, etc). I WILL happily/readily admit that deformation can/does occur on large headsizes coupled with flexy racquets on most 2-point designs regardless of robustness. I'm specifically referring to large sized head frames (namely the Radical OS). You'll see some compression.

HOWEVER: These frames also frequently GET STUCK in 6 point outside mains. They also tend to return to "equilibrium" shortly after removal from the machine regardless of which machine they were strung on. Racquets flex, and are designed to flex. I won't comment on whether or not I think one system is much better than the other in this case (Some will/would argue that if a frame gets stuck -- you're mounting it wrong. I won't fully disagree here).

I own a 2-point, because that's what was available (used) at the time. Though I don't mind having a 2-point it has it's advantages and dis-advantages. That's probably the reason why I still own it, but would gladly trade up in a heartbeat.

Some complain that a 6 point, the side supports blocks grommet holes. Those people are just mounting the rackets wrong, IMHO. Albeit, the Gamma does have wide side supports. My Sensor has a 6 point mounting system, but the towers are fixed, and are limited to mainly tennis rackets. Another reason why I keep the Gamma.

More or less it's personal preference, both systems work fine, and both systems have some slight dis-advantages.

Click to expand...

The Gamma 2-point IMO is not the greatest two point ever conceived. I've had issues with the mounting posts popping out (and from what I collect, this is because 'i was mounting it wrong.'). Apparently you're not supposed to torque down on the mounting post too hard, or else it's MORE prone to slippage The height adjustment on the stocks is fine (and standard design), but I find that the frame will compress/lower a bit when the mounting post is lowered, so you have to actively adjust the plastic stocks a tiny bit lower than normal. The throat mounting is also problematic on thin throated frames. The proposed fix for this (according to the manual) is to put the throat mounting pieces INSIDE the throat, with no active throat-bridge support. Yeah, I don't do that. I use leather belt scraps as spacers on the bottom so the frame stays roughly flat. It would be best practice to do this with a harder plastic material due to compression/lowering issues as mentioned above. Laserfibre resolved their similar issues by creating an "aero" specific throat adapter. This would be nice, but height adjustment would remain a problem. The NEOS used throat spacers, and I felt that even though the mounting plastic bars were narrower in design, the system overall was excellent.

The 6-point quick mount (simultaneous/symmetrically moving arms) is very good, and a joy to use. While I hate potential blocked holes, these can (generally) be rectified by careful/attentive mounting. The quick mount arms are much nicer than the lower end individually mounted arms, IMHO. To prevent blocked holes, you first loooooosely mount the frame in the side supports. There should be plenty of wiggle room. If the side supports would cause a blocked hole, adjust the turn table stocks/billiards to shift the turn table mounts inwards and/or outwards. Do another visual check. If the distance between the turn table mounts is correct, but you STILL have blocked holes, you can THEN move the frame forward or backwards to move the frame itself out of the way of the mounting stocks. This is achieved by 6/12 adjustments. Once you've confirmed no blocked hole potential exists, then finger tighten the outside supports, and you're done. Sounds complicated, but it's actually a very quick process.

I should point out that a WELL DESIGNED side support (C/V shaped support) should actually eliminate most blocked hole issues to begin with. If there is enough room, and the support is thin enough, and the "open space" in between the C/V is wide enough, you should almost always be able to manipulate strings into the blocked hole. Some companies (babolat) are better about this than others.

I've had the 5003 and found the towers and the arms often times getting in the way.. I only string for myself and occasionally family and I rarely string anything above 62 lbs. My thought is that if the racket deforms or cracks, then it was poorly made and about to go anyway. Im leaning toward the 2pt but you may have saved me the other way.

Off topic, the Pro's Pro P100 guy from **** texted me and said they were out of stock, why place an ad on **** for an item you don't have? hmmmmm

Click to expand...

I agree with the crack theory, assuming the frame was mounted properly to begin with (on any system). If you find your arms often getting in the way, you need to be adjusting your turn table mounting stocks. I also shift the C/V mounting posts at the throat to the lower position (presumably designed for badminton), as I find the area that the mounting pieces actually supports the frame more from deformation in that location. It's also a nice indicator so I'm mounting the frame the same way every time. I should note (that when I used the 6 points) I also offset the turn table stocks lower (biased towards the throat). This was to reduce the turn table torquing on Prince O port frames. If the frame is set very low (relative to turn table center), you could get away with one or two less "body braking" events during the string job. This IS NOT ideal from a string length consistency issue (when tensioning).